Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078

Undercover officers purchased heroin from Johnson on three separate days (June 16, June 30, July 6, 2004) with Wilson as a third-party source on the Buick; on July 6 a second bundle was recovered from the Buick during a later search.
The trial court extrapolated total weight of heroin by multiplying a single packet’s weight by the number of packets in each bundle, and used those totals to determine a mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(7)(i).
The Commonwealth sought to aggregate weights from multiple transactions and to attribute a second Buick bundle to Johnson via conspiratorial liability or constructive possession.
Johnson was convicted of conspiracy, possession, and possession with intent to deliver; a three-year mandatory minimum was imposed based on extrapolated totals exceeding one gram of heroin.
On appeal, the Superior Court upheld, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding the second Buick bundle could not be attributed to Johnson for § 7508(a)(7)(i) purposes, and remanded for resentencing.
The case presents whether extrapolation is appropriate, whether Johnson constructively possessed the Buick bundle, and whether conspiratorial liability can justify stacking weights for the minimum sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second Buick bundle can be attributed to Johnson	Johnson argues no constructive possession or conspiratorial basis.	Commonwealth argues Johnson is responsible under conspiratorial liability or constructive possession.	Second bundle cannot be attributed; construct possession and conspiratorial liability not proven.
Whether extrapolation to weight total was proper	Extrapolation used by trial court should be accepted as weight.	Extrapolation is not appropriate under the record.	Court does not decide validity of extrapolation for this appeal; moot since attribution fails.
Whether conspiracy can support mandatory minimum for the second bundle	Conspiracy should allow attribution of co-conspirator’s drugs to Johnson.	Conspiracy does not include conspiracy-based imposition of § 7508(a)(7)(i).	Conspiracy cannot authorize the minimum sentence for the second bundle.
Whether weight from multiple transactions could be aggregated	Aggregate weights across transactions allowed under § 7508.	Vasquez controls; separate transactions cannot be aggregated.	Aggregation improper; only July 6 transactions considered, and second Buick bundle not attributable.

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 562 Pa. 120, 753 A.2d 807 (2000) (holding separate criminal acts cannot be aggregated for 7508 sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Hoke, 599 Pa. 587, 962 A.2d 664 (2009) (conspiracy not included in mandatory minimum when statute enumerates only substantive offenses)
Commonwealth v. Valette, 531 Pa. 384, 613 A.2d 548 (1992) (constructive possession requires ability to exercise dominion and intent to control)
Commonwealth v. Roux, 465 Pa. 482, 350 A.2d 867 (1976) (conspiracy extent and conspiratorial liability principles)
Commonwealth v. Eiland, 450 Pa. 566, 301 A.2d 651 (1973) (co-conspirator liability for acts in furtherance of the common design)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (conspiracy-based attribution of co-conspirator’s drugs to defendant)
Commonwealth v. Holt, 711 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1998) (conspiracy liability where drugs found in co-conspirator's bag; possession conviction upheld)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 577 Pa. 275, 844 A.2d 1228 (2004) (conspirator liability precedent for drug transactions)
Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 510 Pa. 305, 507 A.2d 1212 (1986) (constructive possession framework and totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 469 A.2d 132 (1983) (intent to maintain conscious dominion may be inferred)
Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 604 Pa. 242, 985 A.2d 955 (2009) (statutory construction under strict interpretation for penal statute)